About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
this country, religious up and down this country who believe that the obama administration rightly has leveled a direct attack on their ability to be catholic. that is not going to pass unnoticed in states like ohio, michigan, pennsylvania where the catholic vote is huge and motivated and not happy with president obama. secondly, that chick-fil-a story , this has just begun to roll out, but everyone already knows about it. .. >> the third story i asked about was the 1.5% gdp growth, the horrible growth number, and, again, less than half a percent. the chick-fil-a story was just a day ole. everybody heard about chick-fil-a. it was one of those stories that moves by social media, by e-mail, by tfn, and conversation about the church peat owe, in a group like this, or your friends, and it outrages people. it outrages even supporters of same-sex marriage. it outrages, as i had on the radio show today, gay people. they don't want people bullied over their religious faith, and when rahm tries to beat up the keys of chick-fil-a or the mayor of boston or san fransisco, those are democrat friends of the
in the light of the reaction of the u.s. catholic of bishops to the obama administration rules and the affordable health care act for contraceptive coverage in such cases. parenthetically this is the elephant in the room catholics disagree with teaching and contraception. >> i'm one of those catholics. [laughter] >> in this case the institution i believe still has religious freedom, but other parties are involved, and they have their freedom, too. their religious freedom and peace catholic institutions receive government funding for their operations. so, you have here the attention of the two different conflicting rights going on here. the rules proposed by the obama administration first said that peace church institutions had to provide contraceptive health care insurance for their employees. not only the u.s. catholic bishops but many other catholics and many other proponents of the religious liberty oppose the obama administration regulations but to its great credit the obama administration then proposed a compromise that such employees would be covered for contraception but
-span.org. >> next, three former obama administration pentagon officials defend the president's foreign policy and national security record while criticizing mitt romney. moderated by former cnn, cnn contributor bill schneider, the discussion focuses largely on iran's nuclear program and america's presence in afghanistan. this event, which took place yesterday, runs about an hour, and we'll show you as of this as we can until the pentagon briefing scheduled at 2 p.m. eastern. >> struggling in, and you're encouraged to help yourself to coffee, food, whatever you need. my name's mike bennett, on behalf of my colleagues, jim kessler -- who's here somewhere -- sean gibbons and mika, welcome to another anti-politics press breakfast. before i hand it over to bill, i just had a couple of things we wanted to talk about relating to our work on national security. as mitt romney discovered on september 11th of this year, nothing has the power to shake up a presidential race like a change in national security. and that can be either an external event as we had in libya and egypt, or it can be a political
is spending all of its time besides voting to repeal obamacare, trying to investigate the obama administration, and this is exactly what would be predicted. so what we have been is separation of party some, not really separation of powers. we have unified government. we don't have oversight. and what we need to address is how we get the benefit of oversight that we do get when we have divided government without paying the immense cost which is the near impossibility that we in our time now pass responsible legislation. >> i just have a question. the amendment process. our constitution, some of the mark and a big like the fact that i can vote. and that i dislike the fact that i can vote, the fact that black people and no wonder considered property. i don't know if they actually even succeed to see how it's even -- it didn't really change. and the constitution, and amendment process, even a good thing we always have to look over the whole document to see how changes to be made. >> the united states constitution is the most in the known world. all of the state constitutions are easier to amend th
against the obama administration on the key argument in the case, which was uzbek commerce clause of article one of congress to pass the individual mandate. which says individuals have to get health insurance. and as i sat in court on june 28 and heard chief justice roberts announce his decision in the case, i learned the edge to the question, which was no, it doesn't. the commerce clause does not allow the court, the congress to invoke an individual mandate. but then any decision that stunned many people, but no one more than me, john roberts reached for a subsidiary argument that had only been upended, had only been mentioned in passing in both the supreme court and even the lower courts and he said the individual mandate was a permissible use of taxing power of congress and not the commerce clause, and thus the law would be upheld. subquestion finally anticipate why, why did roberts do that? and i think there were three main reasons. one is, i think you have to take his opinion at face value. eastham thought it was a legitimate use of the taxing power. i think the second and th
government grew during the bush and administration and during the obama administration 1.7%. i agree it is too big bet you put it in the wrong era. we both know of entrepreneurs who have been very successful but but who built the road who built the highways and it is basic six common-sense people understand people come into the state with no government at all. then don't drive on the highway. businesses need the educated work force granted, it is public-private partnership
be the point that the obama administration defends the defense of marriage act and president romney will defend the constitutionality, but it doesn't seem that social conservative question has a lot of allotted salience in some unlike a presidential debate. so i think other than health care i see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here is why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it is kind of remarkable. the republicans during the 90s for a while were seen some political profit in attacking affirmative action given the polls. don't do it anymore and the democrats, john kerry and the early 90s, joe lieberman in the early 90s and others said maybe it is time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that is all gone. i've spoken to republican politicians, why is that? the answer is we get so if we ever raise their voices against affirmative action it is just not worth the cost, not worth the hassle. part of it ironically was an incredibly bitter campaign in calif
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
of business and both were at the council of economic advisers during the obama administration. >> thank you very much michael and to the hamilton project for helping coauthor ronnie and i to further develop this idea into a full-fledged proposal. thanks to you all for joining us this morning. so, i will continue without slides for the moment. what's the idea? economists know that education is really a foundation, not only for individual opportunity, but also for our collective success as an economy. if our towns and cities and regions can't produce an educated work force, we are less likely to succeed and in this increasingly ever competitive economy. we've heard about challenges this morning in the education system. economists note that looking back over history, our capacity to educate, to innovate and to build is how we have developed a level of economic prosperity in the world levels of prosperity and americans have come to enjoy on average the improvements in health and all the things that come with it. we also know that in this -- and these ingredients of education and building that e
billion dollars in civilian aid of the five years at the beginning of the obama administration. if i understand correctly touch and projectiles at the time the amount but if i understand this correctly this was a deeply idealistic effort to try to say we are not only going to give money, were not only going to have an impact with a fairly large civilian assistance program to balance, if you will, are ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we're also going to set up a structure or relationship through what was generally called a strategic partnerships to try to make -- to break out of that pattern. after 2008-9, those of you who knew richard holbrooke knew that the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious kamal of government if you will pools and structures that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long term advisedly. the counter-terrorism effort, post september 11th. by its very nature, by almost the element of the way people understand was by its nature short-term. good to kill bad guys. this was to balance that short-term
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
obama has accused china of exports. as the administration done enough to protect business against unfair trade practices from china? >> they can do more. i am glad they jumped in on the issue about the tires and the issue about the cards. i am concerned about new hampshire losing 16,000 jobs and i think congressman bass is on record with the special trade status for china that is very threatening. dirksen senate office build >> the trade vote is one that is over a decade ago and it is important because it assures the great success china plays by our rules and not the other way around but i do agree such issues as currency debate ought to be resolved and i condemn this administration of doing virtually nothing proactive to deal with the issue of china competition. >> the postal service is losing $50 million a day and proposed cutting saturday service. bass: i break with my republican colleagues. a miscalculation by the office of personnel management on their retirement contribution but once you take that issue and put it aside which they should do we still have a postal service running at
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12